145 replies to this topic

[hira]

How about the Basques in Spain?
As for reservations for the native Ameicans, it is laughable. I have studied the plight of the native Americans in the US, and thinking that the government is repaying them for their misdeeds in the past by reservations is saying how you repay your sins of raping a woman by giving her 2 dollars for an abortion.

Not to be mean, but your basis for bashing China is ignorant and most commonly seen amongst the eurocentrics.

Basques in Spain... it's quite a complex thing, but my first-hand knowledge of it would tell you it's mostly a fabrication. Without discussing origins, there has never been a military invasion of the Basque country, and they voluntarily submitted to Spanish rulers for centuries. They were mostly assimilated by the 19th century. But then a separatist movement aroused, mostly to claim economical privileges.
Of course if you look for it you'll find the opposite view, but that's a complex discussion as a said. And yeah, Indian reservations are quite laughable. I just guessed about what the government justifies them for.

Gotta laugh about eurocentricity. Hey, i haven't claim chinese are useless piece of human trash and that colonization was a good thing. Just wanting to get facts straight. If rationalism is eurocentrism, then count me on it.

And just to tell you guys, there's no such thing as a Han ethnicity. It is a biggest failure of China to produce a "Han" ethnicity because it doesn't really exist.

Wow! I'll admit my deep ignorance about Chinese historical identity. In my eurocentricity I just assumed it as a given fact. Now, if you just could elaborate a little more on that...? I always thaught that there was an assumed collective identity by all speakers of chinese languages, and that there was a fundamental difference between
Han, Tang or Ming dinasties, and Jin, Yuan or Qing, seen as foreign. Are you telling me that people from Guangzhou found the Ming as foreign as the Qing? Or that northerners felt exploited by the Tang? Hey, no sarcasm, I really wanna know.

There's no such thing as sinicization, but standardization of practices. Just as you use English and was taught English, the Tibetans and Uyghurs have to be taught Chinese to compete in the market. Too bad, in a world like this, majority rules.

Oh, no encouraging of Han migration to those places? Not a single effort of altering the previous demographic balance? I've read on the contrary. But you sure know better.


Say what you mean by imperialized, what you understand of the Han people and the Han culture. Your arguments don't make sense.
Read up about the boxers. The boxers are convinced that the Qing represent the legitimate government. The Chinese people do not really care for the ethnicity of the ruling dynasty, but more for the protection, philosophy and authority it represents. the Yuan and Manchu government both claimed to be legitimate government and a continuation of the dynastic system, and both claimed that they're Chinese. The boxers buy that, and they are generally xenophobic towards white Europeans and not the Manchus.

Which expert? Which institution is he or she trained in? What is his or her discipline? Manchu historical records contain an excerpt in which the King of Ryukyu inquired the Manchu Emperor for assistance against Japanese invasion. It does not matter if the people are the same stock. It matters when one does not want to be invaded by the other. Your eurocentric views of ethnic nations is not applicable to Chinese history.

Hell, I don't remember, I'm not that into the matter, but anyway; the Ming also asked the Manchus for assistance, and the Koreans to Japanese and Chinese before the 1894 war. My views of ethnic nations are not 'eurocentric' or whatsoever; they are just modern. Anyway, I know it's anachronistic to think of medieval societies sharing a collective identity such as today's nation-states; I never said the Ryukyuans felt japanese in the first place. True, those things didn't matter on those times. But they do matter today. And for what I know, most Ryukyuans think themselves as Japanese today, independence movements notwithstanding.

It's funny for you to call me 'eurocentric' (you could just called me racist if it's what you want) when you're the first of claiming that Chinese reality is not measurable by objective standards, which you despise as 'western'. Hey, as a write before, ethnic nations is not a traditional european concept; it's just a modern one, shared by all civilizations who have entered modernity. It's perfectly appliable to chinese history; the problem is that the concept, being a modern one, doesn't really fit with agricultural societies. But it doesn't apply to pre-20th century china as to medieval europe.

Before using nonsense relativism to insult any challenging view, think of what you're saying.

[Sephodwyrm]

Basques in Spain... it's quite a complex thing, but my first-hand knowledge of it would tell you it's mostly a fabrication. Without discussing origins, there has never been a military invasion of the Basque country, and they voluntarily submitted to Spanish rulers for centuries. They were mostly assimilated by the 19th century. But then a separatist movement aroused, mostly to claim economical privileges.

Then the Tibetans and the Uyghurs are of the same. Since they also voluntarily submitted to Chinese rule for centuries. However, the difference comes into that the Celestial Courts have granted them autonomy and thus full assimilation did not take place. But then foreign external interference and European Imperialism flamed the so-called "Separatist Movements" mostly to weaken China and for the Europeans to establish new colonies.

Gotta laugh about eurocentricity. Hey, i haven't claim chinese are useless piece of human trash and that colonization was a good thing. Just wanting to get facts straight. If rationalism is eurocentrism, then count me on it.

That is not eurocentricity. That is called blatant racism. Eurocentrism is when one applies western thought and ideals and philosophies on another culture that might see things differently. That is not rationality but imposition of ideals. The Chinese have yet to do the same with European history, but maybe I can start Sinocentrism for you.

Wow! I'll admit my deep ignorance about Chinese historical identity. In my eurocentricity I just assumed it as a given fact. Now, if you just could elaborate a little more on that...? I always thaught that there was an assumed collective identity by all speakers of chinese languages, and that there was a fundamental difference between Han, Tang or Ming dinasties, and Jin, Yuan or Qing, seen as foreign. Are you telling me that people from Guangzhou found the Ming as foreign as the Qing? Or that northerners felt exploited by the Tang? Hey, no sarcasm, I really wanna know.

Read up on Chinese history and you would see that the Han ethnicity is a adaptation from citizens of the Han dynasty that dwell in the great river plains of central China. In the Warring States era, there is no such thing as a Han ethnicity as the citizens of each state call themselves the Chu people, the Han people, the Qin people or the Zhao people. As for the roll of imperial dynasties, any fundamental differences ceased to exist since the Qin dynasty. All dynasties claimed
1. to have the mandate to rule absolutely,
2. a belief in the Confucian ideologies and
3. an effort to attract the Confucian scholars and appeal to the peasants.
This cycle was only broken in 1911 with the founding of the Republic. No sarcasm, but you really should read up more before drawing conclusions. The Jin, Yuan and Qing dynasties are about as Chinese as the other dynasties due to the 3 criteria they meet.

Oh, no encouraging of Han migration to those places? Not a single effort of altering the previous demographic balance? I've read on the contrary. But you sure know better.

So whats so bad about altering previous demographic balance or Han migration to those places? Many European countries and colonies did the same thing. Population makeup of Hispaniola was almost completely changed within a century. Not that I want to raise a smell about it. But it seems that a festering corpse should not criticize a sick person on the way to recovery.

the Ming also asked the Manchus for assistance

When was this? If you're talking about the 7 years war, Manchu offered resistance and this was DENIED. Manchu was a vassal to the Ming dynasty and paid tribute to the Celestial Courts (mink skins and ginseng). In fact, Nurhachi himself dug ginseng for the Ming dynasty. Nurhachi would rise, severe ties to the Ming dynasty, take advantage of the Ming dynasty peasant revolts to achieve his amibitions. His descendants would latter rule China effectively by meeting the 3 criteria listed above. Your point? Ming asked the Manchus to invade them?

It's funny for you to call me 'eurocentric' (you could just called me racist if it's what you want) when you're the first of claiming that Chinese reality is not measurable by objective standards, which you despise as 'western'.

You are eurocentric. Its funny that you think its funny when people call you eurocentric.

ethnic nations is not a traditional european concept; it's just a modern one

And who came up with the concept of "modernity"?
Ethnic nations are the greatest danger to the human civilization IMO. It was inspired by a mix of Darwinism, Biologism and Jingoism. The ethnicities are forcefed distortions of history that their culture and history are superior to their peers. Well, I am pretty convinced that there is a rise of the 4th Reich, and that China is fighting it.

[lobster]

the Ming also asked the Manchus for assistance, and the Koreans to Japanese and Chinese before the 1894 war

You're sure? Which books are you reading?

most Ryukyuans think themselves as Japanese today

Native Hawaiians are Americans, but still Ryukyu and Hawaii were two independent countries eaten up by two colonial giants.

Hey, as a write before, ethnic nations is not a traditional european concept; it's just a modern one, shared by all civilizations who have entered modernity.

There are many countries today that are not "ethinic nations". For example the largest ethnic group in Nepal is only like 15% of the population. Canada is shared by all ethnic groups, at least in principal. A country shared by all ethnicities is actually a modern trend. Look at UK, do they kick out people with African, Indian or Asian ancestors?

If you look at Chinese history, China has always been shared by many many ethnicities, some of them blending into the Han culture, while some of them remaining themselves, but are still OK. Chinese people don't have a narrow view of living with people of the same stock only. All within the four seas are brothers (四海之內皆兄弟也) (no sexist here).

[hira]

[quote name='Sephodwyrm' date='May 31 2005, 09:21 PM']Then the Tibetans and the Uyghurs are of the same. Since they also voluntarily submitted to Chinese rule for centuries. However, the difference comes into that the Celestial Courts have granted them autonomy and thus full assimilation did not take place. But then foreign external interference and European Imperialism flamed the so-called "Separatist Movements" mostly to weaken China and for the Europeans to establish new colonies.[/quote]
They submit voluntarily? No invasion involved? No resistance? None at all? They welcomed the Manchus with open arms? Hey, that's new to me.

As for the roll of imperial dynasties, any fundamental differences ceased to exist since the Qin dynasty. All dynasties claimed
1. to have the mandate to rule absolutely,
2. a belief in the Confucian ideologies and
3. an effort to attract the Confucian scholars and appeal to the peasants.
This cycle was only broken in 1911 with the founding of the Republic. No sarcasm, but you really should read up more before drawing conclusions. The Jin, Yuan and Qing dynasties are about as Chinese as the other dynasties due to the 3 criteria they meet.
[/quote]
And did the population feel them as equal? I mean, there's a difference between dinasties built by uprisings (the Ming) and plain foreign invasions. Did the people feel them as equally legitimate?
I'm fed up of reading about han nationalism despising the Qing as foreign rulers. If all I've read are lies, well, that's another thing.

[quote name='Sephodwyrm' date='May 31 2005, 09:21 PM']So whats so bad about altering previous demographic balance or Han migration to those places? Many European countries and colonies did the same thing. Population makeup of Hispaniola was almost completely changed within a century. Not that I want to raise a smell about it. But it seems that a festering corpse should not criticize a sick person on the way to recovery.[/quote]
The bad thing is doing it deliberately with political purposes


[quote name='Sephodwyrm' date='May 31 2005, 09:21 PM']When was this? If you're talking about the 7 years war, Manchu offered resistance and this was DENIED. Manchu was a vassal to the Ming dynasty and paid tribute to the Celestial Courts (mink skins and ginseng). In fact, Nurhachi himself dug ginseng for the Ming dynasty. Nurhachi would rise, severe ties to the Ming dynasty, take advantage of the Ming dynasty peasant revolts to achieve his amibitions. His descendants would latter rule China effectively by meeting the 3 criteria listed above. Your point? Ming asked the Manchus to invade them? [/quote]
Read that somewhere, that Ming were facing a popular uprising and, unable to control it, asked for help to the Manchu army, who used the opportunity to invade all the mainland. We're being taught that, you know ^^U ; forget it, I seem quite misinformed


[quote name='Sephodwyrm' date='May 31 2005, 09:21 PM']You are eurocentric. Its funny that you think its funny when people call you eurocentric. [/quote]
I apologize for using such contemptable western concepts such as reason and logic to a culture that seems to see things differently. We westerners tend to think that all human societies are comparable, and that differences are cause of time or degree of development, not of culture. At the end all philosophical concepts can be reduced to two or three. Sorry for hurting your chinese exceptionalism, but you're on the same boat.

[quote name='Sephodwyrm' date='May 31 2005, 09:21 PM']And who came up with the concept of "modernity"?[/quote]
Time. Sociology as a science is quite recent, and those concepts were first thought of from the 18th century. That's what we call modern. Or contemporary, best said.
[quote name='Sephodwyrm' date='May 31 2005, 09:21 PM']Ethnic nations are the greatest danger to the human civilization IMO. It was inspired by a mix of Darwinism, Biologism and Jingoism. The ethnicities are forcefed distortions of history that their culture and history are superior to their peers. Well, I am pretty convinced that there is a rise of the 4th Reich, and that China is fighting it.
[right][/right][/quote]
The believe in genetically pure nations came up much later than the belief in nations, which is what we're discussing here. With 'ethnic' I don't mean sharing a genetic code, I mean sharing a common culture. I mean, when I say "han chinese" I don't mean a genetically equal race; I mean a people who have a conscience of common identity, based on history, customs, language, or whatever. No nation on the world is ethnically pure; but most of them feel themselves to be a unique nation which distinguishing features. Physical appearance is one, but not too important.

[quote]Well, I am pretty convinced that there is a rise of the 4th Reich, and that China is fighting it.[/quote]
You're definitely nuts. But just for curiosity; what are you talking about?

[lobster]

The believe in genetically pure nations came up much later than the belief in nations, which is what we're discussing here. With 'ethnic' I don't mean sharing a genetic code, I mean sharing a common culture. I mean, when I say "han chinese" I don't mean a genetically equal race; I mean a people who have a conscience of common identity, based on history, customs, language, or whatever. No nation on the world is ethnically pure; but most of them feel themselves to be a unique nation which distinguishing features. Physical appearance is one, but not too important.

Canadians believe in multiculturalism. So I guess we are a backwards country.

[hira]

Canada is a new country built my inmigrants, as the US. It's fundamentally different from old societies like those of eastern Asia and Europe.

And you would be surprised of how many Canadians do actually not believe in multiculturalism.

[lobster]

Canada is a new country built my inmigrants, as the US. It's fundamentally different from old societies like those of eastern Asia and Europe.

And you would be surprised of how many Canadians do actually not believe in multiculturalism.

Why can't "old" countries be multicultural?

You'll be more surprised of how many Canadians do believe in multiculturalism.

[hira]

I'm very much aware of Canadian's belief on multiculturalism, I assure you.

The attitude of people from old countries towards its societies is fundamentally different from those of countries like the US, Canada, or Australia. People in old societies have 'their' culture, stablished for thousands of years, and have built their identity around it. It's just not so easy to tell them that your culture is not worth what you thought it was, that all the things you are used to are going to change,and that you have to get used to live together with people you don't know about and who don't share any of the values you hold precious.

Which doesn't mean there are lots and lots of people on old Europe which love seeing its worldview twisted and share it's country with foreign people. Europe today it's very much changed and there's a lot of debate on the issue. You could say that's a fundamental difference between the Right and the Left in Europe. And I guess the same in Canada; rightists can't be too enthusiastic about see their dear british values lose preeminence.

[lobster]

That's only the western right and western left. These right/left thingies can't be applied to China. The Chinese ideal is always to live in peace with all people. The Han coexisted with other ethinic groups for milleniums, and the are very different sub-cultures within the Hans themselves, all under the same country. Please don't put the western/European models directly onto China like as-is.

[hira]

If traditional Right-Left divisions don't apply to todays China, it's because it is still undeveloped. They apply perfectly to Japan, South Koream and increasingly to Taiwan and Hong Kong.

I'm really amazed that you buy into stuff like "The Chinese ideal is always to live in peace with all people". China is special, China is unique, China is unlike all the rest of the world. Hey, it sounds familiar after all

[lobster]

Why does right/left thingy aka western political spectrum not being applicable means underdeveloped? I don't buy into these one dimensional views neither.

[Sephodwyrm]

And did the population feel them as equal? I mean, there's a difference between dinasties built by uprisings (the Ming) and plain foreign invasions. Did the people feel them as equally legitimate?
I'm fed up of reading about han nationalism despising the Qing as foreign rulers. If all I've read are lies, well, that's another thing.

Well, the thing is that you should concern yourself with true works of history and historiography and not propaganda. You cannot read some Han-chauvinist propaganda (or other propaganda that tries to mold the Chinese into a bunch of Han-chauvinists) and then claim its history and then come to a conclusion that China is a racial empire. Look, if we're Han-chauvinists, we could have easily created 5 ethnic states out of China after the 1911 revolution. We didn't.

They submit voluntarily? No invasion involved? No resistance? None at all? They welcomed the Manchus with open arms? Hey, that's new to me.

Ask warhead about this. He's one of the experts concerning Tibetan, Mongol and Uyghur submission to the Manchus. Even if there's an invasion, autonomy and self rule was granted. In fact, they don't have to keep pigtails. Is that new to you? Probably.

Read that somewhere, that Ming were facing a popular uprising and, unable to control it, asked for help to the Manchu army, who used the opportunity to invade all the mainland. We're being taught that, you know ^^U ; forget it, I seem quite misinformed

The first step to wisdom is acknowledging your short comings. Good job. You're turning Chinese now!

You're definitely nuts. But just for curiosity; what are you talking about?

I am not sure if this is considered a personal attack against a moderator. Please restrain yourself.

[wuTao]

The USA is nothing the like. There are no nations inside the USA, but inmigrant groups who voluntarily abandond their home countries to be subject to the US government. And those people have equal rights with anglo-saxon or European descent americans. If you think America is a global empire because it exploits the world economically; well, you're nuts. But anyway, that would be a different discussion. The fact is that American territory is not home to any subjected nation. Well, maybe the native indians, but they are mostly extinct/assimilated by now.

I'm not so sure about this. As was mentioned, the Hawaiians still consider themselves as a subjected and occupied nation. And I think maybe you should talk to an American from the deep South... as I've heard it, there's still quite a few Southerners who consider the South as under occupation from the Union.

[General_Zhaoyun]

That's the way I see it: China is the territory inhabitated by Han people.

It's wrong of you to view China as a han-only land. It shows your understanding of chinese history is limited.

If you study indepth into chinese history, China was inhabited not just by han people but by many other minority ethnicities such as Xiongnu, Tujue, Rouruan, Shatuo, Xianbei, Wuhuan, Jurchen, Tubo (Tibetans), throughout chinese history etc... during the Age of Fragmentaion, these minority nomads migrated from the steppe into the central plains of China, through incursion, war , and even established kingdoms in China (see 16 kingdoms), just like what happened to Europe after the collapse of Roman Empire. These have been called the 'ancient ethnicities of China". Most of them were sinificized with the adoption of han-culture, and some disappeared from history.

Han is only a new term that surfaced out of Han dynasty. It originated from the Huaxia civilization in central plains of China where the people living in central plains were originally called "Hua Xia" people. The northern part of China was essentially inhabited by northern nomads such as Xiongnu, Xianbei.. who were called "hu" people. Overtime, other minority groups migrated inwards into China, moulding together and forming a new mult-culture and ethnic composition that characterized China.

To view 'chinese' as han-only is clearly wrong. China is a large country with multi-racial and ethnic composition just like America. These minorities are part of a large group known as the chinese people (Zhong Hua Min Zu). Chinese people is not a han-only ethnic, it has some 56 ethnic nationals. We can't blame that. China is a large country just like America. I can't blame you for relating China to han-only land, because han dominated China for most of the times, but there are other minority groups that dominated China such as Mongol during Yuan and Manchu during Qing.
Now, the Mongols and Manchus actually ruled China as like any chinese ruler.

Edited by General_Zhaoyun, 01 June 2005 - 12:14 AM.

[tianzhuwoye]

China is a large country with multi-racial and ethnic composition just like America. These minorities are part of a large group known as the chinese people (Zhong Hua Min Zu). Chinese people is not a han-only ethnic, it has some 56 ethnic nationals.

Well over 90% of the PRC is registered as Han, and there's a level on which that's really not all that diverse.

Regardless, this is kinda an idealistic view, as is the perception that the autonomous regions are autonomous or well represented by the peoples descended from the nations that these regions have replaced. The deliberate close-ups on tv of the people attending central party meetings fully decked out in ethno-museum headgear is, like it or not, textbook tokenism. Plus, on the very, very outside chance that national self-determination actually goes anywhere here (the threat/hope/whatever of independence is extremely exaggerated in both the PRC media as well as in the media abroad) and these places end up as full-blown nations, there's a very good possibility that these dolled-up 'representatives' of a CCP-engineered 'great harmony of the peoples' will be in danger of becoming what we refer to historically as 'collaborators.'

One thing that bothers me sometimes is the idea that one nation's 'sins' are less of a big deal than another's, usually proven by nitpicking through the surface differences and presenting them as irrefutible evidence that 'we' could never commit 'their' crimes. Very few modern nations don't have some serious ugliness in their pasts, and very few nations don't resort to euphemism and 'oh yeah well so-and-so did this' kinds of 'arguments' as a defense on occasion. Did you guys see President Bush's recent reaction to the latest Human Rights report criticising the US for violations on the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? I swear to the Chairman that he brought an almost point-for-point mirror of the PRC's defense when faced with these kinds of criticisms, and at first, like a lot of people out there probably, I was pleased with the poetic justice and irony of it all. But maybe the bigger issue is how 'right and wrong' can be completely warped out of recognition when they come into conflict with the interests of a given nation, whether 'ours' or 'theirs.'

Would the Basques have ended up in this conversation if hira's dissenting views weren't coming from Spain? Regardless of who's behind it, conquest of foreign lands is conquest of foreign lands, and double standards won't make the damage caused to the defeated parties of history go away. Whether or not the PRC's lipservice regarding the preservation of the cultures out in its furthest regions will amount to anything besides a celebration of their various and well-categorized dances and funny hats remains to be seen, but their presence in the nation is without question the result of a legacy of imperialism (with Chinese characteristics?)